Christianity and masculinity

I’ve always struggled with understanding why Humor is attractive, but concept of Kingdom Rule helped me figure it out.

A man’s kingdom generates attraction in women through PSALMs and other factors many of which are social. For instance, charisma, humor, intelligence or mastery are things that are generally attractive to women. Charisma, intelligence, and mastery are more obvious to understand as they directly trigger a woman’s hypergamy.

However, humor remained illusory to me for a while. Humor seems to have a few concepts underlying it and many different types per AI:

• Slapstick: Physical comedy relying on actions and appearances rather than dialogue.
• Satire: Using humor, irony, or exaggeration to criticize people’s flaws or vices.
• Self-deprecating: Making jokes at one’s own expense.
• Dark Humor: Addressing sensitive or taboo topics in a comedic way.
• Wordplay: Using linguistic twists and puns for humorous effect.
• Observational Humor: Drawing humor from everyday situations and human behavior.

In general, much of humor is a deflection of the topic to something either off topic or contrasted between something else.

Some aspects of humor are attractive and some are not. For instance, self deprecating humor is almost never attractive to women except if the man is very attractive already. Usually the self deprecating humor will negatively trigger hypergamy as the man is unconsciously putting himself below the woman which will generate feelings of disgust.

Most other aspects of humor seem to trigger hypergamy from the perspective from altering the balance of Internal Locus of Control (ILOC). For instance, if a woman is serious about something and a man can deflect the conservation to something funny, this brings her out of her own feelings and centered feelings of her ILOC and into the man’s world.

This is very similar to the fitness/shit test responses such as agree and amplify which turn the test of a man’s fitness on the head by defusing the situation with something silly: “Does this dress make me look fat?” being defused by something like “yes, that dress makes you look soooo big that your gravitational pull may pull me right to you.” You could even classify this into a form of satire.

The unconscious pulling her out of her own world into your world flips her ILOC to revolve around you instead of her being centered on herself. Or if  we go to game dynamic references then it’s out of her frame and into yours.

Indeed, humor is simply just another form of social mastery. I’d also classify other forms of social mastery aside from the ones mentioned like charisma and intelligence in the same way. Effective public speaking and story telling are similar ones that draw in not just men but also women in the same way.

The sex = marriage arguments from Deuteronomy 22 and Exodus 22 don’t work logically.

First here are the passages.

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes (châzaq) her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes (tâphaś) her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 22:16 “If a man seduces (pathah) a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Here are the Strong’s lexical definitions of the words.

Chazaq – A primitive root; to fasten upon; hence to seize, be strong (figuratively courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify), obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer: – aid, amend, X calker, catch, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good (take) courage (-ous, -ly), encourage (self), be established, fasten, force, fortify, make hard, harden, help, (lay) hold (fast), lean, maintain, play the man, mend, become (wax) mighty, prevail, be recovered, repair, retain, seize, be (wax) sore, strengten (self), be stout, be (make, shew, wax) strong (-er), be sure, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, withstand.

The lexical uses of the word include Angels dragging Lot, his wife and daughters out of Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh hardening his heart, applied strength of force like Samson, etc.

Taphas – A primitive root; to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably: – catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take.

The lexical uses of the word include Potiphar’s wife grabbing Joseph by the cloak, Israel seizing villages, Saul’s robe, a sinner ‘taphas’ by an adulterous woman, etc.

Pathah – A primitive root; to open, that is, be (causatively make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude: – allure, deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade, silly (one).

The lexical uses of the word include God saying that the Israelites should not be deceived by other gods, the Philistines telling Delilah to entice/deceive Samson, and other uses in Job, Psalms and Proverbs about deceiving others into sin.

It is generally clear that there is some variance in semantic range for all of these different words. In the context of these particular passages, the most likely definitions of these words would be as follows.

• Chazaq = Rape. Man seizes betrothed in a field and no one can hear her scream
• Taphas = Force but Consent. Joseph if he consent to Potiphar’s wife taphas or becoming a sinner with an adulterous woman’s taphas.
• Pathah = Deceived such that Consent is Compromised.

Expounding on my arguments in the comment section of this post is here.

First is the argument against virgin agency

Artisanal Toad addressed this situation in terms of agency, i.e. virgins have no agency, and she is under her father’s authority.

Also, if someone is not in a coherent state of mind to make decisions, then those decisions are made by others, i.e. her father. But in the case of seduction/rape, Chad pulls the shots. Either way, it indicates that she lacks agentic capacity.

This is a good case of why black and white thinking on womens’ agency is very easily misinterpreted. Let’s look at the passages briefly.

Numbers 30:3 “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the Lord will release her.

If wives and daughters had no agency, then the Bible would say that a wife or daughter cannot make vows or pledges in Numbers 30. Those who have no agency cannot make decisions for themselves. Rather, we see in Numbers 30 that wives and daughters can make vows and pledges (e.g. they have agency), just that the father has an overruling authority if thinks they’re foolish.

The same is true with the seduced woman as the father thinks she was being deceived or foolish with the man who she had sex with so he can nullify what happened. The virgin woman in this case exercised some degree of agency in deciding to have sex with this man, but if the father decides that her judgment was impaired enough he can nullify it. Likewise, the Church is under the authority of Jesus, but that doesn’t mean the Church has no agency.

This error about no agency is very similar to the one that the complementarians make with husbands and wives. If a wife does not want to have sex with her husband, they blame the husband for not being more loving because if supposedly he’s more loving then she will submit and have sex with him. This is implying that the wife is a robot with no agency to choose to do the right thing.

Main point 1 – One being underneath authority does not preclude partial or full agency. Only that the one underneath the authority has some protection if they make an error in judgment.

Second the wording of the passages implies that there is a level of consent with taphas

Deutertonomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes (châzaq) her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes (tâphaś) her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

If we look closely at the bolded parts of the passages we see a couple things emerge.

• The betrothed woman that was chazaq‘ed in the country was not guilty because she screamed and there was no one to rescue her.
• The virgin woman that was taphas‘ed anywhere did not scream but was discovered.
• The lexicon for discovered are translations such as when no helper was found for Adam in the garden, the dove Noah sent out found no dry ground, etc.

The former with the betrothed that was chazaq’ed clearly show that the rape is something that is unwanted contrasted to the betrothed in the city where if she didn’t scream then it was wanted and she was guilty.

On the other hand, the virgin woman that was taphas’ed did not scream but they were discovered. This directly shows some level of both agency and consent. However, we can distinguish from Exodus 22 that she was not seduced.

Main point 2 – There is some level of consent with taphas as the virgin woman did not scream which makes it not rape (chazaq)

Third is the argument that the Law is advocating for sex = marriage

Punishments in the Law are not to be used to consider what is the marriage ideal. But don’t listen to me, listen to Paul on how the Law helps us identify sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

In general, for these specific cases aside from identifying sin, the Law is trying to confer some punishment for the offender but an equitable solution for the victim.

1. In the case of the woman seduced, the father can make a ruling because she was not in her right mind but the offender must still pay the bride price. The Equitable solution is that the father can nullify what happened and punishment that the offender must pay the bride price regardless and be forced to marry her if the father assents.
2. In the case of the taphas it seems likely that like Potiphar’s wife grabbed hold (taphas) of Joseph but the woman was in her right mind to assent like if Joseph assented but the genders were flipped. God upholds the virgin woman’s limited agency in this case much like we uphold shotgun marriages to prevent the shame of the woman (equitable solution), but the offender is punished by being forced to not only pay the bride price but never being able to divorce her.

Main point 3 – Pathah is seduction impaired consent while taphas has some level of consent with it based on the semantic range of the word usage

Fourth is understanding that the difference between chazaq and taphas and pathah matters

The sex = marriage contention involves the following assumptions. Let’s follow the logic.

1. If you assume that sex = marriage then you must eliminate any potential consent from taphas because otherwise there has to be a passage included in Deuteronomy 22 that the father could nullify it like with pathah in Exodus 22. It’s clear from the Deuteronomy virgin passage there is no such instance.
2. This then forces taphas to be the semantic equivalent of chazaq which we can logically conclude that both mean to rape. Chazaq clearly means to rape — the betrothed woman won’t be punished in the country because no one could hear her scream.
3. Then by the same argument virgin woman is now automatically married her rapist because sex = marriage. In other words, this woman is getting raped and forced into a marriage at the same time.

This leads to the following word definitions.

• Chazaq = Taphas = Rape = Marriage
• Pathah = Consent but father can nullify. Doesn’t matter if the consent is seduced or deceived or not.

You can see how this line of argument is logically fallacious as they’re forcing the terms together. Fortunately, the Bible does provide evidence that chazaq is not taphas and the semantic ranges of these words differ.

• Chazaq = Rape. Man seizes betrothed in a field and no one can hear her scream only he is guilty
• Taphas = Force but Consent. Joseph if he consents to Potiphar’s wife taphas in reverse or becoming a sinner with an adulterous woman’s taphas. The virgin woman does not scream but they are discovered.
• Pathah = Deceived such that Consent is Compromised. Father can annul the situation.

A good interpretation of the passage must account for why the terms are different

Main point 4 – The difference between chazaq and taphas must mean there there is some choice along with the screaming versus discovery textual clues.

---

Based upon these logical arguments, it is clear to me that the Bible does distinguish between rape, some force but consent, and seducing or deceiving a woman into sex. The sex = marriage position tries to redefine the words so that chazaq = taphas = rape = marriage and ignores the direct contextual clues like screaming versus discovery. It also tries to throw away female agency under the guise of being under authority when that’s not what the Bible shows.

Indeed, based on the past couple posts in regard to dominance triggering a woman’s sexual arousal, you can how in real life some show of force + consent could result in a situation where God deems that a “shotgun marriage” should occur without the father’s consent in terms of both the punishment to the man and equitable solution for the woman. If a woman is seduced or deceived, the father can annul the compromised consent. In both cases the women have some degree of agency albeit the Law proposes different solutions and punishments if there was compromised consent or non-compromised consent.

Only comments arguing the points are allowed. Any other miscellaneous nonsense is not tolerated.

As I was reading Jack’s analaysis of Fear is stronger than Hypergamy and making a comment, I think I figured out the missing links in our understanding here. Decided to bring it over here since it was getting longer and it showed some of the thought process which got me there.  

Hmmm. I can see where you’re coming from with the fear dynamic, but I still don’t think it’s an overriding hypergamy. Your post did clarify a bit for me the dualistic nature of hypergamy in the sense of dominion though.

The dualistic response to a man’s dominion is to either submit or rebel. However, whether a man employs varying degrees of force whether physical, emotional, or other, can amplify different responses to submission or rebellion. The Fear Factor I think is more directly a result of a woman’s internal and external locus of Control.

The more neurotic a woman is, the more anxious, a damaged childhood, absence of a father, peer pressure, or various modifying factors seem to modify the Control factor. A woman with a loving but strong masculine leader as a father who is a good husband will make her feel Safe. Hence, her locus of Control is decreased and usually she is very feminine and more submissive. Whereas when women have to deal with many of the negative attributes listed in the first sentence this slowly raises her internal Control and tends to lead her to not only being less feminine and more masculine but desire to have higher Control over herself. Hence, in relationships she is more likely be rebellious.

When a man’s Dominance is greater than her internal Control, Fear is generated.

From the sexual point of view, women generally prefer as a whole dominance over romance if we’re defining the romance and soft and slow intimate sex whereas dominance tends to be the rough and hard with potential elements of faux violence like slapping, choking, rape fantasies, etc. This seems to be the case because it more strongly triggers the Over on her internal Control. Feminists, women with BPD, and other women with a strong locus of internal Control seem to go more wild for sex in these cases, perhaps because not many men can trigger this switch and when it is flipped they go from the rebellious attitude to overwhelmingly submissive sexually. This appears to be an overcorrection perhaps due to the lack of safeness or stability from the past negative experiences.

As I was writing this, I may have had an epiphany here that might fit better. Won’t delete any of the above, but maybe this fits everything best. In other words,

• Hypergamy seems to be the Sexual Attraction part of the equation which generates Respect – Women look up to the tall, muscular, successful, masculine leader but are not necessarily aroused by him.
• Dominance triggering the Control switch is the Sexual Arousal part of the equation which triggers Fear. Dominance exposes her vulnerability through loss of control (Dominance > Control), but it is intensely validating when coming from an attractive man.
• Fear and respect while related and often two sides of the same coin come together to maximize a woman’s sexual response.

This helps us understand better the differences between sexual attraction and sexual arousal. 

When I wrote before on the differences between sexual attraction and sexual arousal, we really hadn’t made this connection yet understanding the internal workings of sexual arousal. Jack’s post helped me to understand here that it’s not necessarily fear overcoming hypergamy but both working in concert to generate a woman’s sexual response. 

To summarize:

• Hypergamy traits – PSALM+ (power, status, athleticism, looks, money, height, masculinity, leadership, etc) – trigger a sense of Respect for a man in a woman if he is greater than her in these.
• Dominance triggers a woman’s internal Control switch which generates Fear. When Dominance overrides the Control, this Fear is expressed as vulnerability and humility which if a man proceeds sexually leads validation. 
• Kingdom Rule – To put this this in Biblical terms, God outlines this in Genesis 1-3. Taking dominion over the earth and animals leads to building a man’s own Kingdom which generates the Respect component while ruling or dominance over his wife elicits elicits the necessary Fear component to bring about a complete and titillating sexual response. 

I went with the term Kingdom Rule because I believe this accurately matches the Hebrew definitions.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue (kabash) it. Rule (radah) over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

H3533 – kâbash – A primitive root; to tread down; hence negatively to disregard; positively to conquer, subjugate, violate: – bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.

H7287 – râdâh – A primitive root; to tread down, that is, subjugate; specifically to crumble off: – (come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule, (-r, over), take.

and

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire (teshuqah) will be for your husband, and he will rule (mashal) over you.”

H8669 – teshûqâh – From H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing: – desire.

H4910 – mâshal – A primitive root; to rule: – (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.

Genesis 1 seems to establish building a Kingdom through kabash and radah, and Genesis 3 shows the Rule or dominion of the husband over the wife. Hence, Kingdom Rule as a shortcut for explaining the dual nature sexual response. Women want to see a man with a Kingdom that is better than hers, and then she is attracted enough that she wants him to initiate Ruling over her. 

As we have noted before, the desire and rule portion is shown to be double sided for women. This is a choice between the accurately named “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” that manifests continually within a marriage. 

Genesis 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires (teshuqah) to have you, but you must rule (mashal)  over it.”

Song of Songs 7:10 I belong to my beloved, and his desire (teshuqah) is for me.

In Genesis 4, Cain’s desire gives into sin and ends up rebellion just like Eve is given the same choice in Genesis 3, but we see in Song of Songs where a husband’s rule (she acknowledges that she belongs to him) and the husbands’ desire is toward the wife. This can seem unrelated at first because it’s talking about the husband’s desire, but we understand that the husband’s rule and dominance (his desire) towards possessing his wife generates his wife’s own sexual desire through the mechanism we have discussed. Dominance overcomes her Control which leads to Fear expressed as vulnerability and humility and then to (sexual) validation and submission. 

This explains why vigorous dominant sex is typically highly preferred by women over slow so-called romantic sex. This is a feature not a bug. Many of the dominant acts like slapping, choking, BDSM, and other things like this will often elicit a stronger sexual response provided a woman is not triggered by previous negative experience such as a previous sexual assault. In fact, being possessed by a dominant man is often called very romantic by women which is clear in womens’ porn and in practice in relationships and marriage. It seems many men were misinformed what romance actually is. 

Finally, to draw things back around, Jack’s current series, I’d conclude that it is mainly discussing the nature of Sexual Arousal and not necessarily Hypergamy or Sexual Attraction. They interact with each other but one does not usually express over the other. Rather, they work in concert with each other in generating. Usually there is not one without the other. 

Jack’s post on the Ordinance of Fear has stimulated me a flesh out some thoughts I’ve had for some time on this topic. I’ve written substantially about attraction such A Christian understanding of attraction, and the role it plays in marriage: Part 4. It’s one of the works I consider seminal to this blog and perhaps wider Christian ethos on tying natural attraction to the Bible whereas most Christian pastors have no clue about it at all. Digging deeper into our understanding of hypergamy, we need to example it from multiple angles. There’s three main factors that we have observed in the real world about women and their own attraction triggers.

1. Women are not good at understanding what attracts them. When asked, very few are self aware of what they like. They usually respond in a way that bypasses attraction such as naming qualities (e.g. kindness, family man) they would like in a man they are already attracted to.
2. Women are not good at discerning between good and evil directional aspects of what attracts them
3. Like-attracts-Like principle where generally worldly women are more oriented to being attracted to the worldly versions of attraction and sexual desire. This also does not exclude Christian women being tempted toward worldly versions if they are surrounding by unattractive men.

Expressions of hypergamy Diving into some more of the details of hypergamy, I’m going to propose some examples that we’ve seen before and may have not either. I’m not particular tied to these examples, but I would like help to refine them into something that is usable. To define some terms first. Hypergamy is the overarching observation that women want to marry up. This means that women are sexually attracted men that are superior or have more dominion than themselves. Women are hardwired to want their man to be better at them in almost every aspect possible — even the most hardcore feminist — unless they are actively trying to LARP (live action role play) as the man in the relationship. Main categories are going to be mental, physical, and emotional. Though spiritual is often denoted as a separate component, in reality this should pervade the Christian walk which is all 3 of these categories so it’s more a holistic application rather than a separate one. Plus, we are trying to orient what the natural attraction is from the worldly attraction and that makes the discernment easier. These are some but not all of the list of traits that fall under the umbrella of hypergamy and tend to be something women are sexually attracted to.

• Mental
  • Power/Authority
    • Leadership/headship – Genuine authority vs Gentile authority
    • Dominance – Dominion/dominate vs domineering
    • Authority subset – Respect vs Fear
  • Status – Reputation and fame vs ill repute and infamous
    • Publicity – Good reputation vs “no publicity is bad publicity”
• Physical
  • Height – Tall vs taller than her vs shorter than her vs short
  • Athleticism – Physical dominance vs violence/abuse
  • Looks – Handsome vs Narcissism
  • Physique – Muscular vs bear/bodybuilder vs normal vs thin/fat
• Emotional
  • Masculinity – Manly/the man vs machismo vs feminine
    • Women feel good around manly men but get the ick with feminine men
  • Money – Security/provision vs gold diggers
  • Charisma – Good Charm and Influence vs selfish (e.g. the Dark Triad)
  • Humor – Funny vs Offensive

There’s more than this, but just a start. If this is understandable or resonates with you, I’d like some help in filling out more of this so we can get a standardized understanding out there that would be useful to all men.

• Sexually – Women want to be dominated physically, mentally, and emotionally in the bedroom although the lines can be more blurred on how dominant they prefer. Most have some sort of dominated fantasy,  but this stems from usually already being attracted from the above.

It is only Attractive Male Attention that is validating to a woman. Many of the attributes above trigger a woman enough to be attracted to a man, and that’s where he is afforded some influence on her and her feelings. If you don’t trigger these and give attention you are likely to be named a loser or creep as SNL put it. To go back to Jack’s post a bit, I don’t think fear is outside of hypergamy but more so fear has some interplay in many of the different aspects of triggers of hypergamy. There’s a dominion type fear both regularly and sexually where the lines are blurred between a dominate vs domineering man where she likes some of it but if gone too far she may hate it. There’s the power dynamic with respect/fear. There’s the fear of violence, fear of lack of provision or divorce, and many other things like that. Fear mostly plays into the mental and emotional side of relationships, although some women get themselves into physically abusive relationships. Perhaps mental and emotional are too close together to really distinguish as well. I could see some of the traits falling under emotional or mental. If anyone else has any ideas, be sure to comment on them.

Still here and reading other blogs, but still haven’t had much time for posting.

I was doing some digging and unfortunately I couldn’t find anymore recent data on female contraception than 2017-2019 at least in an easily digestible format for the stats I wanted. I don’t think much has changed in the carousel in that time frame though.

All source pictures from the CDC website

Essentially what we have here is the breakdown of contraception by age groups which is the hardest data to find which is probably why I couldn’t find anything in the 2020-2025 range.

• Female sterilization – Usually tubal ligation
• Pill – Hormonal birth control
• Long act reversible (LARC) – intra-uterine devices, other implants, or shots like depo provera

For our purposes, the majority of women seem to wise up about the carousel around 30 years of age. Some still ride it of course, but the main target of women sleeping around tends to be the 15-19 and 20-29 age groups.

Several things are important to understand

• The women choosing to be child free in the 20-29 age group is virtually negligible at 2.9%, but likely includes a large portion of carousel riders.
• Almost 20% of women in the 15-19 and 20-29 are on the pill.
• LARC in the 20-29 vs the 15-19 age groups and male condoms seem to indicate there are more carousel riders in the 20-29 range. This makes good sense being that 15-17 are pretty much illegal for men over 18 and the fact that logistically sex is harder when you’re living with your parents.
• “NOTES: Women currently using more than one method are classified according to the most effective method they are using.”

Some portion of women use both condoms and the pill or LARC, but since pill and LARC are more effective than condoms they would not be counted for both but only the pill or LARC. This is important because we know that we can now add condoms on top of the data we have here.

Next chart from the CDC

• 16.8% of women are celibate
• 7.8% are pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy
• 7% and 3% are women having sex with no protection. Likely the most of the women who end up being single mothers. 
• I couldn’t find whole US data, but I did find Washington state data which indicates that 21% of single mothers are 15-19 and 61% of single mothers are 20-29. 

To scale, we can say that of the 10% not using protection, 2% would be 15-19 and 6% would be 20-29. It’s not perfect but a reasonable inference.

Results of a the probable percentage of carousel riders in different age groups

Caveats – It’s important to understand that approximately half of women are married by around age 28-29 now, so some portion of these women are married but don’t want kids yet. However, it’s MORE likely that the married people are not using birth control than single women after we factor in the women that are actively trying to get pregnant or are pregnant or just had a baby.

Thus, we can reasonably estimate that the number we get is probably the least amount of carousel riders. For instance, if 50% of women are married and 50% are non-married it’s likely that some women will go off of the pill, forego condoms, or take out uterine devices sometime after they get married even if not right away given. In other words, a larger portion of them would be counted into the non-contraceptive use category. Of course, since around 35-40% of children are born out of wedlock it might not be as big a difference as we think, but all in all I would call this a wash in the form of likely more than the numbers we get.

Some women also get on hormonal birth control to control their periods as opposed to having sex, but that percentage is probably not that high.

IFStudies surveys from the 2010s to 2020s also confirm that men are more sexless than women.

Between the 2013-15 NSFG wave and the 2022-23 wave, all measures of sexlessness rose for both young adult males and females. In terms of virginity, young adult males rose from 4% virgins in 2013-15 to 10% in 2022-23; for young adult females, reported virginity rose from 5% in 2013-15 to 7% in 2022-23.

But a larger share of young adults have had sex at some point—just not in the last year. Sexlessness in the last year rose from 9% for males in 2013-15 to 24% in 2022-23. For females, it rose from 8% to 13 percent.

Approximate percentage of carousel riders

• 15-19 — 0 (sterile) + 19.5 (pill) + 5.1 (condom) + 5.8 (LARC) + 2 (none) = 32.4%
• 20-29 — 2.9 (sterile) + 21.6 (pill) + 10.4 (condom) + 13.7 (LARC) + 6 (none) = 54.6%

These numbers seem reasonable to me since the obesity epidemic has effectively reduced a decent number of the male and female populations in regard to attractiveness which reasonably excludes some bottom portions of the population.

Also, as stated before, the 15-19 age range has legal and logistical reasons why they would be opportunistically lower especially where high school and extra-curriculars are important for a good majority of women’s educational aspirations.

It’s likely this 50-60% of female riders in the 20-29 region are going after the top 5%, 10% and 20% of men which is why the backlogging occurs and where the cries of “where are all the good men at?” come from.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692300329X

Off with her hair: Intrasexually competitive women advise other women to cut off more hair

Highlights

• Women use competitor manipulation as a form of intrasexual competition.

• Highly competitive women advised hypothetical salon clients to cut off more hair.

• Women told clients of similar attractiveness as themselves to cut off the most hair.

• Female intrasexual competition may be assortative with respect to mate quality.

• Female intrasexual competition manifests without any contextual cues to mating.

Interesting study came out last year. Obviously, take with a grain of salt as it’s just one study and the differences seem to be small although statistically significant. However, this would fall under the category of something that makes some deal of sense.

The vast majority of women look better with longer hair and hence women suggesting to cut more off or reinforcing the opinion to do shorter cuts could be seen as sabotage. Women in general tend to use more underhanded/subtle tactics like this than men.

The same is true of people trying to lose weight. At first everyone is happy for you, but then they start to make the snide remarks about losing too much weight or getting too thin.

Basically, both men and women need to be discerning about these things if they are trying to date or marry. It’s can be the case especially with women that they can advise you to do the wrong thing like cut off too much hair, don’t lose the weight, or any other types of body positivity that will decrease your attractiveness to men. Men are usually more straight forward on these, but you can still get conflicting advice here and there.

Earlier in the year I posted on the IFStudies analysis that suggests 1/3rd of women won’t be married.

A recent though not very recent Pew Research article suggests similar trends but they have demographic separations on them.

These were their points.

• Gender: A higher share of men than women had never married.
• Race and ethnicity: Black 40-year-olds were much more likely to have never married than Hispanic, White and Asian 40-year-olds.
• Education level: 40-year-olds without a four-year college degree were more likely to have never married than those who had completed at least a bachelor’s degree. One-third of those with a high school diploma or less had never married, compared with 26% of those with some college education and 18% of those with a bachelor’s degree or more education.

Overall, the gender analysis is true. Less men marry than women by about 5-10% because many of the men who divorced or were divorced by women will remarry. Men have a much easier time remarrying than women because they are generally considered more attractive by the opposite sex into their late 20s, 30s and early 40s as opposed to women. Women who are older and divorce often find that most of the attractive and desirable men are snapped up already, and the ones they do like will only have sex with them but not commit.

Race and ethnicity is quite obvious given the destruction of the black family unit decades ago. Many of the other races and ethnicity are following suit.

To no one’s surprise generally college education is correlated to higher incomes as long as you don’t get a useless degree in liberal arts. That typically accounts of a large portion of the disparity in the education difference as from other articles I’ve covered show that marriage is much less likely under poor socioeconomic conditions. There’s a whopping 15 point gap between high school educated vs bachelors. I would not be surprised to see if it was analyzed further that there is a difference between bachelors and PHD or professional degrees as well.

The rise of men advocating for the passport bros is not without some basis.

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/job-divorce-rate-1017

Wanted to look at divorce from the perspective of professions.

Jobs with the lowest divorce rate:

• Actuaries 17%
• Physical scientists 18.9%
• Medical scientists and life scientist 19.6%
• Clergy 19.8%
• Software developers 20.3%
• Physical therapists 20.7%
• Optometrists 20.8%Chemical engineers 21.1%
• Religious and education directors 21.3%
• Physicians and surgeons 21.8%
• Biomedical and agricultural engineers 22%
• Podiatrists 22.4%
• Dentists 22.5%
• Pharmacists 22.6%
• Military enlisted tactical operations and air/weapons specialists and crew members
• 23%
• Speech language pathologists 23.2%
• Natural science managers 23.7%
• Biological scientists 23.7%
• Veterinarians 23.9%
• Agricultural products graders and sorters 24%

Jobs with the highest divorce rate:

• Gaming managers 52.9%
• Bartenders 52.7%
• Flight attendants 50.5%
• Gaming service workers 50.3%
• Rolling machine setters, operators, and tenders 50.1%
• Switchboard operators 49.7%
• Extruding and drawing machine setters, operators, and tenders 49.6%
• Telemarketers 49.2%
• Textile knitting and weaving machine operators and tenders 48.9%
• Extruding, forming, pressing, and compacting machine setters, operators, and tenders 48.8%
• Telephone operators 47.8%
• Massage therapists 47.8%
• Gaming cage workers 47.3%
• Licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses 47%
• First-line supervisors of correctional officers 46.9%
• Dancers and choreographers 46.8%
• Dispatchers 46.6%
• Textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machine operators 46.5%
• Ambulance drivers and attendants 46.3%
• Small engine mechanics 46.2%

It appears that most of the hard sciences have the least divorce rates.

• This probably makes sense in that they tend to require at least a bachelors if not a master or PHD, graduate or professional degree.This requires a solid amount of self control and discipline to get through and at the very least some amount of intellect
• As we learned in my college analysis on divorce, though college educated women divorce men at a higher rate than regular women (90% vs 70%)  but the overall amount of women is a lot lower because of the vastly lower college educated divorce rates vs regular divorce rates of associates degrees or HS degree only. This makes sense as anyone who can make it through college at least has a better self control, long term perspective, and likely less money worries.
• I’d also suspect that most of the hard sciences and professional degrees are people who think longer term and logically about things and are less prone to make feelings-based decisions
• Hypergamy-drive in women likely reduced by marrying higher status professionals

On the other hand, the vast majority of highest divorce rate professionals have a lot in common:

• Exposed to tons and tons of people so it’s likely for them to compare and become more dissatisfied with their spouse
• Low or no education in most of the professions
• Very stressful jobs in a lot of cases. Makes people more prone to emotional and rash decisions if focus and willpower are used a ton at work

Didn’t really mean to take this anywhere, but it’s good data. If you can find women in the above fields they’re much less likely to divorce. However, they are also much less likely to actually like you unless you’re in the top X percentage of men. It can also give you a good idea of who to avoid, which should be obvious at least to most Christians for most of these such as bartenders, casino workers, and others like that.